Defining the MAP during a nonprecision approach

jrh said:
You precisely expressed the problem I see with many training institutions today. They get so caught up with technical definitions that they miss what really matters. That might work fine for pilot mills churning out future airline pilots, but it's a lousy approach to training individuals flying for business or pleasure.
Click to expand...

I was trained a "pilot mill", but I learned to be a pilot a Cessna Pilot Center, where I instructed for 3 years. We didn't teach future airline pilots as our primary business focus, mainly business men/women or hobbyist.

I teach my students what is defined by the FAA in the Instrument Flying Handbook, it's very simple and it's spelled out for you in plain language.

If you have a non-precision approach, the MAP is define 1 of 3 ways:
1) Time
2) Station Passage
3) GPS or VOR/DME Fix

That's not very technical when you combine it with when you go missed off a precision approach.

In my view, using the GPS as the primary reference when it's not intended to be is bustable offense, I know for a fact that if I did that on a checkride, I would expect to be busted because I did something that is not defined by the FAA. If a DPE/FAA Examiner bust a student over something they can prove in an FAA publication, you have no ground to stand on saying it's a "technicality" because it's not, it's right there in words.

Technicality or not, it is not approved and in aviation, if you do something that's no approved, you get busted for it. Time is the primary reference in this scenario, and by teaching your students they can use GPS is doing them a disservice because it is not defined in the Instrument Flying Handbook.

While I agree that you should use both (GPS and Time), until the FAA changes their wording on it, I have to side with using time. I have to answer for why my students did something wrong on a checkride, or didn't know something if they bust, so I'm going to cover all my bases to make sure they're as well rounded (training/real world flying) as they can be for their checkride.
 
We're all on the same page here that the GPS is more accurate and should be allowed for judging the MAP in this case. I would love to see the FAA spell it out in that way, but until they do, I'm forced to teach my students what is the "rule".

If anything, this should make us want to put together a petition for the FAA to change, or better clarify this situation. More and more aircraft have GPS and have the ability to define 5.3NM's from the VOR and can see exactly where to go missed. We all know you can't expect to fly 90kts GS all the way through the approach due to changing winds and variances in airspeed/GS, so your time won't be 100% spot on (as a GPS would).

I try to give my students "real world" flights like they would encounter in their everyday flying (This is from years of Part 91/Part 135/Part 121 flying), and to help them understand the nuances of being an IFR pilot and how mesh into the IFR system.

The main issue we're all having here is "What really happens and how it really should be" against "How does the FAA say to do it", and we're fighting a loosing battle unless we can find a way to change how it's written in the FAA publications.

JRH, I'd be more than happy to try to put together a letter/petition to send to the FAA for a change/clarification with you. It would serve us all (as pilots/teachers) good to get it changed so that we can have a more uniform way of teaching our students.

We're on the same team, I'm not against you in any sort of way and I agree with what you're saying. I'm just trying to point out where the FAA would turn to if it became a "pissing match" between them and I (or you).
 
SurferLucas said:
While I agree that you should use both (GPS and Time), until the FAA changes their wording on it, I have to side with using time. I have to answer for why my students did something wrong on a checkride, or didn't know something if they bust, so I'm going to cover all my bases to make sure they're as well rounded (training/real world flying) as they can be for their checkride.
Click to expand...
I agree with your philosophy. Even at the primary level I teach short checkpoints but explain that the shortness (not the activity) is because it's a training exercise.
 
MidlifeFlyer said:
I agree with your philosophy. Even at the primary level I teach short checkpoints but explain that the shortness (not the activity) is because it's a training exercise.
Click to expand...

That's the best part of flying a Part 61 environment as opposed to Part 141, you have more leeway with how you teach your lessons and what you accomplish. One of the best moves in my career was to stay at Lanier Flight Center and teach, as opposed to going back to DCA and teaching. It made me a better teacher, but also a better pilot purely because I was able to see that there was flying outside of "always training for the airlines".
 
MidlifeFlyer said:
SurferLucas, a follow up question if I may.

What's the purpose of the 5.3 NM from the FAF to the MAP? Surplussage?
Click to expand...

From what the Instrument Flying Handbook says, it's there to show how the Distance and Groundspeed give you the "Time". (T=D/S)

The exact quote from the Instrument Procedure Handbook (Page 5-33) says "A table at the lower right hand side of the approach chart shows the distance in NM from the FAF to the MAP and the time it takes at specific groundspeeds, given in 30 knot increments. Pilots must determine their approximate groundspeed based on the approach airspeed and true airspeed of their aircraft and the current winds along the final approach course. A clock or stopwatch should be started at the FAF of an approach requiring this method. Many approaches designate a specific fix as the MAP. These can be identified by a course (LOC or VOR) and DME, a cross radial from a VOR, or a RNAV (GPS) waypoint."
 
SurferLucas said:
We're all on the same page here that the GPS is more accurate and should be allowed for judging the MAP in this case. I would love to see the FAA spell it out in that way, but until they do, I'm forced to teach my students what is the "rule".
Click to expand...

Maybe it's an anti-authority streak in my personality, but I avoid teaching anything "just because." I must have solid reasons for the lessons I pass on. It makes me feel like a lemming to do otherwise. If I can't explain the "why" behind a procedure, I figure I shouldn't bother teaching it.

SurferLucas said:
If anything, this should make us want to put together a petition for the FAA to change, or better clarify this situation.
Click to expand...

I've thought the same thing, but I don't know who to contact.

SurferLucas said:
I try to give my students "real world" flights like they would encounter in their everyday flying (This is from years of Part 91/Part 135/Part 121 flying), and to help them understand the nuances of being an IFR pilot and how mesh into the IFR system.
Click to expand...

So do I. That's why I brought this issue up.

SurferLucas said:
JRH, I'd be more than happy to try to put together a letter/petition to send to the FAA for a change/clarification with you. It would serve us all (as pilots/teachers) good to get it changed so that we can have a more uniform way of teaching our students.
Click to expand...

If you can figure out where to send it, go for it. I'll try to do the same.

SurferLucas said:
We're on the same team, I'm not against you in any sort of way and I agree with what you're saying. I'm just trying to point out where the FAA would turn to if it became a "pissing match" between them and I (or you).
Click to expand...

Valid points. Thankfully even the FAA doesn't get in to pissing matches over things this small. I've never heard of anyone violated for such a detail. Heck, I can't even imagine under what circumstances the feds would know the difference for if a pilot is using time or GPS during an approach. I think our debate is more academic than practical.

I asked one of our local DPEs about this topic today. His answer? He laughed and said, "That is a question that need not be asked..." Then he went on to echo the sentiments expressed here. It might technically be required to time an approach, but he wouldn't bust somebody over it as long as they stay aware of where they're at using whatever means are available.
 
jrh said:
You precisely expressed the problem I see with many training institutions today. They get so caught up with technical definitions that they miss what really matters. That might work fine for pilot mills churning out future airline pilots, but it's a lousy approach to training individuals flying for business or pleasure.

I tell people to fly like they train and train like they fly. I *never* want to hear, "This is how you have to do it for your checkride..." coming from an instructor. If a person gets busted for something on a checkride, there are only two possibilities. 1) What they were doing was unsafe and they shouldn't have been doing it that way in either real world ops or a checkride, or 2) the examiner busted them on a stupid technicality and they shouldn't have busted. It's gotta be one or the other.

So with that in mind, maybe you could tell me...if there is a discrepancy between time and GPS, which one do YOU (as in, you personally) follow? I'll gladly tell anyone who asks, I use GPS. If you follow the GPS, why did you bother to start a timer that you're going to completely disregard? If you follow the timer, why are you disregarding a piece of equipment (GPS) that is so clearly more precise? I'm not asking these questions rhetorically, I honestly want to hear your reasoning if you disagree with the way I do it.

Time or GPS, one or the other, a pilot MUST pick a "primary" reference. There has to be a moment during which the throttles get pushed forward and nose pitched up. My decision to take those actions is based on the GPS.

Also, while I respect your experience as a check pilot, I'm equally experienced as an instrument instructor. I've sent numerous clients to checkrides with multiple examiners and never been questioned on this technique. The reason I bring it up here is because another instructor told one of my clients it's a big deal to always start the timer during an approach. I disagree and wanted to see how other instructors teach this area.
Click to expand...

And anyone who has a $10,000 piece of equiptment in their avionics stack and does not use it (not talking about practice, but the real thing) is foolish. If the GPS and the time are saying different things, you bet I'm going with what the GPS says. I think most DPEs would agree with you too. They're looking for the sfaest pilot and to not use GPS or DME to help you out on a VOR approach in actual would not be the safest decision.
 
azaviator08 said:
Why couldn't you just use 5.3 DME on your GPS to go missed??? It even says 5.3 from FAF to MAP.
Click to expand...

Have you even read this thread?

Since it seems you haven't, here are the cliff notes:

The FAA says in the Instrument Flying Handbook and in the Instrument Procedures Handbook that the MAP for a Non-Precision Approach can be determined 1 of 3 ways:
1) Time (As defined on the chart, which gives you the distance from the FAF to MAP so that you can determine time based upon GS)
2) Station Passage
3) GPS or VOR/DME/RNAV Fix (meaning, it has to be labeled on the approach plate as such)

We're all in agreeably that this should be clarified by the FAA, and possibly changed to reflect the ability to use GPS to define the MAP, as it is possibly safer considering how difficult it is to maintain a constant GS from FAF to MAP.

Until they listen to us, however, if you use the GPS to define the MAP on an approach like this, it is technically wrong...regardless of how stupid we all feel it is, it's written by the FAA that way and if challenged on it, you'd better be ready to explain why you're going against how it's written out.
 
azaviator08 said:
Why couldn't you just use 5.3 DME on your GPS to go missed??? It even says 5.3 from FAF to MAP.
Click to expand...
To add to Lucas' comment, compare the approach that we've been discussiong with this one - the ILS 35 at KFTG http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/1104/06851IL35.PDF.

Although the KFTG is an ILS/LOC and not a VOR-A, what you'll see is that the MAP is labled as a DME fix off the localizer. The question we've been discussing is whether it's "legal" to use DME (or a replacement like GPS) to identify the MAP when it's not labled as such.

If you want to compare apples with apples, compare the KFTG approach with the KSEK ILS or LOC 29R http://aeronav.faa.gov/d-tpp/1104/00407IL29R.PDF
 
Thats is unusaul that they do not have a DME fix off of the Omaha VOR. Meaning the little "D" with the DME distance inside. The VOR-A in GXY is a good example of what I am talking about.

Maybe we should send a few comments in, try to get a true DME fix for CBF?
 
necoflyer said:
Thats is unusaul that they do not have a DME fix off of the Omaha VOR. Meaning the little "D" with the DME distance inside. The VOR-A in GXY is a good example of what I am talking about.
Click to expand...

That is correct, that is the DME Fix that the FAA says you can use to define the MAP. You could also have a VOR intersection for a MAP, or a GPS Fix.
 
If we're now hip on doing things that "make sense", regardless of what an FAA reg says; then why are people still getting wrapped up about doing a "mandatory" PT when going straight-in would completely make sense....using the reasoning of "the regs say to?"
 
MikeD said:
If we're now hip on doing things that "make sense", regardless of what an FAA reg says; then why are people still getting wrapped up about doing a "mandatory" PT when going straight-in would completely make sense....using the reasoning of "the regs say to?"
Click to expand...

Go get you own thread! :)
 
MidlifeFlyer said:
I don't think so. Here we're talking situational awareness. You are still going to the same point in space.

Go ahead. Make your guess at GS, start the timer, recalculate GS as you descend and and the wind shifts counterclockwise and loses speed, and feel free to take something that really shows where you are with a grain of salt ;) .

Nothing in the timing/DME scenario changes anything that affects anyone. OTOH, skip the PT without a straight in clearance and you're potentially doing something that affects other users of the airspace and could cause a loss of separation.

Besides, most of the discussion surrounds whether using something that tells you where you are for real is in fact prohibited or not. The only good argument I've seen that it's prohibited is that some plates do show the DME distance.
Click to expand...

Heck, use both for all Im concerned with; timing and GPS. They're both there in front of you, no need to not reference them.
 
MikeD said:
Heck, use both for all Im concerned with; timing and GPS. They're both there in front of you, no need to not reference them.
Click to expand...

That's really what we're all saying here is what the student "SHOULD" be doing, using all the available information to them. The main question was which is the FAA's answer, why is it there answer, and why can you not use GPS to determine the MAP.

What we'd like to see is the FAA say "Yes, you can determine the MAP by using the GPS to show how far you are from the FAF by using the 'NM from FAF' on the approach plate."

That would make the most sense seeing as how most aircraft now have an IFR Approach Certified GPS that can give them some sort of reference to the MAP in terms of distance. That would make it more standard, and would fit in nicely with FITS training.
 
SurferLucas said:
From what the Instrument Flying Handbook says, it's there to show how the Distance and Groundspeed give you the "Time". (T=D/S)

The exact quote from the Instrument Procedure Handbook (Page 5-33) says "A table at the lower right hand side of the approach chart shows the distance in NM from the FAF to the MAP and the time it takes at specific groundspeeds, given in 30 knot increments. Pilots must determine their approximate groundspeed based on the approach airspeed and true airspeed of their aircraft and the current winds along the final approach course. A clock or stopwatch should be started at the FAF of an approach requiring this method. ...
Click to expand...

Slight hijack, but ...

Regarding timing, are you allowed to use a wristwatch, stopwatch, or a portable timer to determine the time, or must you use the certified, panel clock or stopwatch? It's just that for GPS, you can only use handhelds for situational awareness--certified, panel-mounted GPS must be used for Instrument approaches.
 
I'm going back to "don't ask don't tell" on this one. :D

I think the answer is it doesn't matter. It's pretty much in the same category as the DME/GPS issue if there's no "D" distance given. 91.205(d)(6) only requires "A clock displaying hours, minutes, and seconds with a sweep-second pointer or digital presentation." Doesn't say whether it needs to be installed in the aircraft or not. Like the DME/GPS issue, would you rather rely on the brand new digital clock you bought at Radio Shack or your highly accurate atomic wristwatch that re-sets itself to the government standard or the original sweep wind-up in the 1967 Cherokee you're flying?

Maybe one of the Part 135 flyers can tell us whether their MEL deals with the issue.
 
MikeD said:
If we're now hip on doing things that "make sense", regardless of what an FAA reg says; then why are people still getting wrapped up about doing a "mandatory" PT when going straight-in would completely make sense....using the reasoning of "the regs say to?"
Click to expand...
No "regs" here, Mike. Only "made-up", "passed-down", "I was taught", school procedures that people think are regulatory.
No regulation says to use time. No regulation says you have to PT when you don't need to.
No FAA guy will "get you" if you don't use time. It is strictly up to the pilot to determine his/her position.

An FAA question to anybody who says they have to use time to determine MAP:

You have descended to MDA on a non-precision approach, still in clouds, and 2 minutes left to go, when you suddenly see a water tower pass beneath that you know is just past the airport. You gonna keep flying at MDA for another 2 minutes?
 
nosehair said:
No "regs" here, Mike. Only "made-up", "passed-down", "I was taught", school procedures that people think are regulatory.
No regulation says to use time. No regulation says you have to PT when you don't need to.
No FAA guy will "get you" if you don't use time. It is strictly up to the pilot to determine his/her position.

An FAA question to anybody who says they have to use time to determine MAP:

You have descended to MDA on a non-precision approach, still in clouds, and 2 minutes left to go, when you suddenly see a water tower pass beneath that you know is just past the airport. You gonna keep flying at MDA for another 2 minutes?
Click to expand...

Yes. Because time must be used!!!!!!:sarcasm: Sad thing is, some people have some things/ideas drilled so far into their skulls that they would continue and turn into a pile of junk on the side of a mountain. A good reason to look at everything you've got and ask yourself, "does this make sense?" Sometimes not enough people look at what makes sense and get all wrapped up in what the rules say, while important the rules are not everything, it's the 3 pounds of hardrive in beetween the headset cups that could save someone's life.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top